by Chauncey Tinker – 6 Feb 2018
UK Channel 4 TV’s Cathy Newman hit the headlines recently when she interviewed Canadian academic Professor Jordan Peterson. In the interview she hit a snag when she asked the professor if his freedom of speech included the right to offend, and he pointed out that she was offending him with her line of questioning. Thus she was “hoisted by her own petard“.
“Why should your freedom of speech trump a trans person’s right not to be offended?” Newman asked
BBC Newsnight’s Kirsty Wark made a similar mistake last week when she interviewed Tommy Robinson, but this mistake has largely gone unnoticed so I thought I would take the time today to point it out. In the interview Kirsty Wark repeatedly tried to insinuate that Mr. Robinson had somehow “radicalized” Darren Osborne, a “radicalization” that she clearly wanted us to think had led to the lethally violent attack.
(Darren Osborne is of course the man who this week was sentenced for deliberately driving a van into Muslims on the pavement near Finsbury Park mosque, killing one and seriously injuring others).
What Ms Wark failed to realize is that by her own logic she could just as easily be accused of “radicalizing” people to commit violent acts against Mr. Robinson. If merely criticizing a person is to be considered as “radicalization”, especially in relation to such contentious issues, without in any way inciting violence against them, then this “logic” can just as easily be leveled against her as well for this scathing insinuation. She too then, is “hoisted by her own petard” – she is guilty of RADICALIZATION herself.
What’s worse, in her case she was trying to insinuate that some connection existed between Tommy Robinson and Darren Osborne for which no evidence had been provided in the trial in question. By contrast, Mr. Robinson is dedicated to pointing out that the Islamic religion contains very real incitements to violence and condones other acts such as rape, sexual slavery, and child sexual abuse, as explained in his book – “Mohammed’s Koran: Why Muslims Kill for Islam”.
Since Mr. Robinson is a high profile public figure, then “radicalizing” people to commit acts of violence against him puts him statistically in fact at almost INFINITELY GREATER risk than any individual Muslim is currently in the UK, making Kirsty Wark’s “radicalizing” insinuations a very serious matter indeed. So far at least, the risk to individual Muslims in the UK is in any case extremely small by comparison, as illustrated by this graph that is circulating on social media as a meme at the moment:
This is no trivial matter, since Mr. Robinson is very frequently the subject of death threats not just against himself but also against his entire family. Although threats are quite commonplace for people in public life, these threats are clearly extremely serious in Mr. Robinson’s case. There have even been actual attacks and further attempts made to attack him as well, including a terrorist incident and other incidents, as detailed in Mr. Robinson’s epoch making book “Enemy of the State”. Last week he tracked down a Muslim who had been making just such death threats against him and his family:
Tommy Robinson: Tracking Down a Potential Jihadi
(Note that the police had been informed of the threats and had done nothing at all to find the man, and yet Mr. Robinson was able quite easily to track down this clearly rather confused individual on his own – yet another sign of how terribly weighted our “justice” system is these days in favour of a particular group).
See also this article from the BBC:
Police probe threats made to EDL founder Tommy Robinson
How is Kirsty Wark able to make such an obvious blunder without realizing how utterly hypocritical her attitude towards Mr. Robinson is? Even if an attack against Mr. Robinson and/or his family does take place, we can expect that this glaring hypocrisy will not be commented upon from within the group-think bubble of the mainstream media/political elite. The exact same hypocritical attitude towards Mr Robinson is shared by almost everyone else within this group-think bubble, and so nobody within the bubble ever hears an argument against it.
The judge in the Osborne case is also trapped within this same bubble, and so her closing remarks (which were also clearly partly directed at Mr Robinson), revealed a very similar attitude towards those who dare to criticize the Islamic religion:
Osborne had been “rapidly radicalised over the internet by those determined to spread hatred of Muslims“, she said.
“Your use of Twitter exposed you to racists and anti-Islamic ideology,” she added.
Those within this group-think bubble that currently governs us and directs our thoughts have lost sight of the crucial principles that make for a just society – the principles of equality before the law and innocent until proven guilty. In their place there is nothing but blurred lines, moving goalposts, double standards, double-speak and double-think. The “interview” was nothing of the sort, it was a trial by media, a kangaroo court with Kirsty Wark acting as the prosecution, jury and judge.
The disgraceful BBC program is available in full here:
BBC Newsnight, 1 February 2018
A surprising article about the Newman/Peterson interview standing up for freedom of speech from The Guardian by Matthew d’Ancona:
Banning people like Jordan Peterson from causing offence - that’s the road to dystopia
What do you think? Please leave a comment below.